Re: Contradictions in Christianity

[James]

The Chief Castrator Of The Jews <Codeb...@bigsecret.com>
>On May 14, 1:00�pm, Joe Bruno <atandy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 7:07:36 AM UTC-7, Onion wrote:
>> > On May 14, 8:46 am, Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > Joe Bruno <atandy...@gmail.com> wrote innews:963e8d73-9151-4785...@googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > > > In the King James Version of the Bible, it quotes one of the Ten
>>
>> > > > Commandments as:"Thou shalt not kill".
>>
>> > > > How then, do we explain the Crusades, a military expedition ordered by
>>
>> > > > the Pope in the 11th century?????


They clearly were not Jesus' true disciples because Jesus said at Mt
19:19b,

"...Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." (KJV)



>>
>> > > > The first commandment reads:"I am the Lord thy God:thou shall have no
>>
>> > > > other gods before me".
>>
>> > > > How then do we explain the Christian claim that Jesus is the Son of
>>
>> > > > God and therefore divine?


Actually, Christendom claims that Jesus is part of a Trinitarian god.
But the true God of the Bible is only "one". De 6:4,

"Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord:" (KJV)

Jesus was CREATED by God, thus he cannot be worshipped. Col 1:15,

"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation."
(NASB)

Who did Jesus say to worship? Himself? Mt 4:10,

"Jesus said to him, "Away from me, Satan! For it is written: 'Worship
the Lord your God, and serve him only.'"" (NIV)

Notice "him only"


>>
>> > > > Another of the commandments prohibits the making of "graven images".
>>
>> > > > How, then, do we explain pictures and statues of Jesus in Christian
>>
>> > > > churches and statues of saints made by Catholics?


How is it explained? Genuine Christians go by God's word. 2 Co
6:14-17,

"14 Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do
righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can
light have with darkness? 15 What harmony is there between Christ and
Belial? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? 16
What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we
are the temple of the living God. As God has said: "I will live with
them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my
people." 17 "Therefore come out from them and be separate, says the
Lord. Touch no unclean thing, and I will receive you."" (NIV)

>>
>> > > You think your religion is free of contradictions?
>>
>> > This has nothing to do with the religion
>>
>> > Nobody asks you to believe any of this verse
>>
>> > for salvation
>>
>> > > David took seven hundred (2 Sam. 8:4), seven thousand
>>
>> > > (1 Chron. 18:4) horsemen from Hadadezer;

Scribal error is the possible explanation. The Bible says "all
Scripture" is inspired of God, not all COPIES of Scripture.
Translators can put whatever they want in their Bibles. That doesn't
make them necessarily right.

Concerning 2 Sa 8:4 and 1 Ch 18:4:
In the Greek Septuagint both passages indicate that 1,000 chariots and
7,000 horsemen were captured, and therefore 1 Chronicles 18:4 perhaps
preserves the original reading.

But note that no DOCTRINAL points are in error here. Just some
numbers. I think the Bible did real good at copying itself,
considering it was written by over 40 people over a period of 1600
years, and then copied many times after that.


James
John 4:23,24
www.jw.org


>>
>> > This is NOT the Torah... Only the Torah was dictated by God
>>
>> > as far as we know.
>>
>> Correct. The god-deniers still cannot grasp what I've said before:Different books of the Old Testament were written by different people who did not consult each other.In many cases, the authors of earlier books were dead by the time later books were written.
>
>
>"You shall not kill" was also written on the Tablets given by God to
>Moses
>and those tablets were secured in the ark of the Covenant that was
>carried
>around, yet this did not prevent Joshua to lay siege on Jericho and
>kill a lot of innocent people except for a prostitute that
> helped the Israelites spies...
>----------------------
>Devillepin, L'Afrique n'est pas un vil pain et elle n'a pas de maitres
>non plus quelque soit ce que te feront croire Mossi Dramane
>Ouattara, Ban-Ki-Moon et leur complices
>
>>
>> The Tanakh(OT) is not intended as a history book.It's purpose is to teach.
>> They still think it's a science book, too and they ramble on and on about
>> the story of Creation in Genesis being at odds with the theory of evolution.
>>
>> Good grief! When Genesis was written, the sciences of Geology, Paleontology,
>> and biology were in their infancy and almost nothing was known about these
>> things.Darwin did not put forth his theory of evolution until the middle of the 19th century.That was at least 3000 years after Genesis was written.
>>
>> Welcome to the Atheist Propaganda forum.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

Unholy Hands on the Bible:
An Introduction to Textual Criticism [Hardcover]
Dean J. Burgon (Author)


Excellent defense of the Textus Receptus/ Majority Text August 12,
2001
By Gary F. Zeolla
This volume was edited by Jay P. Green, and he has added some of his
own material. But the bulk of the book is taken from the writings of
Burgon (1813-1888).

Burgon was a stanch defender of the Textus Receptus (TR) against the
then new text of Westcott and Hort (WH). Today's Majority Text (MT) is
very similar to the TR and today's Critical Text (CT) to the WH text.

This volume actually contains several books by Burgon. The first book
defends "The Traditional Text of the New Testament" against the new WH
text.

The following quote summarizes his argument: "Does the truth of the
Text of Scripture dwell with the vast multitude of copies, uncial and
cursive, concerning which nothing is more remarkable than the
MARVELOUS AGREEMENT which subsists between them? Or is it rather to be
supposed that the truth abides exclusively with a very little handful
of manuscripts, which at once differ from the great bulk of the
manuscripts, and also differ widely among themselves?" (p.9).

He then lists and explains his "Seven Notes of Truth." They are: 1.
Antiquity, or Primitiveness. 2. Consent of Witnesses, or Number. 3.
Variety of Evidence, or Catholicity [i.e. geographical distribution].
4. Respectability of Witnesses, or Weight. 5. Continuity, or Unbroken
Tradition. 6. Evidence of the Entire passage, or Context. 7. Internal
Considerations, or Reasonableness (UnHoly, Vol. I, p.15).

These Seven Notes of Truth are still followed today by MT scholars,
such as Robinson and Pierpont, the producers of the Byzantine Majority
Text. This writer used this Greek text when producing my Analytical-
Literal Translation of the New Testament. So indirectly, Burgon had an
influence on my translation work.

The second book looks at "The Cause of the Corruption of the
Traditional Text of the Gospels." He then goes into detail on various
accidental and intentional causes of corruption. He demonstrates why
it is manuscripts like Aleph and Beta, which WH favored, which are
more likely to have these corruptions than the Byzantine manuscripts
underlining the TR.

Next he looks at "The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to
Mark." He explains why a few manuscripts more likely omitted this
passage than that it was added to the bulk of manuscripts. He does the
same with the story of "The Woman Taken in Adultery" (John 7:53-8:11).

He also looks at "The Revision Revised." This is "A Critique of the
English Revised Version of 1881." Although the RV is no longer
popular, most new versions still follow the ideas underlining it. So
this book is still relevant today.

Then Burgon demonstrates the "Proof of the Genuineness of God
Manifested on the Flesh." This is a detailed defense of the reading of
"God" in the TR in 1Timonthy 3:16 rather than the WH text reading of
"who." This variant is important as with "God" the verse demonstrates
the deity of Christ, but with "who" this proof-text is lost.

Then comes a book on "The Secret Spanking of Westcott and Hort." This
book demonstrates fallacies in the reasoning of WH. The volume then
closes with a short book on "Conflation and the `Neutral' Text." In
this book Burgon critiques Hort's textual transmission theory.

Overall, Burgon's writings are very in-depth. The amount of
information in this book can be overwhelming, and it is rather
difficult reading. So this volume is not for the person new to the
subject. For such a person I would suggest my book Differences Between
Bible Versions. It has an entire section on Greek text types, starting
with a chapter titled "Introduction to Textual Criticism." So my book
would be the place to begin, and Burgon's books in this volume would
be the place to go for much greater detail.

http://www.amazon.com/Unholy-Hands-Bible-Introduction-Criticism/dp/1878442635

[vince garcia]

What hypocrisy!

That's why your version of the Bible perverts Hebrews by rendering one
of its most important verses as "GOD IS YOUR THRONE" instead of the
correct "Thy throne O God" to dillute the deity of Christ

An angel sits on God's face in your bible, making God subservient to an
angel in YOUR world

[James]

vince garcia <vggar...@ix.netcom.com>

No comment on the above Scriptures? Hopefully then you accept their
application, esp Col 1:15 showing Jesus to be a created being.

Concerning the translation of "God is your throne" as opposed to "Thy
throne O God", notice this non-JW translation that twists the words
around. He 1:8 quotes Ps 45:6.

Ps 45:6, " Your throne is from God, for ever and ever,
the sceptre of your kingship a sceptre of justice, (NJ)

He 1:8, " but to the Son he says:
Your throne, God, is for ever and ever;
and:
the sceptre of his kingdom is a sceptre of justice;" (NJ)

Thus they were not consistant in this Catholic New Jersusalem Bible,
and changed the words around at He 1:8, even though it is a direct
quote of Ps 45:6.

Todays English Version Bible has a footnote at He 1:8, "Your kingdom,
O God, will last; or God is your kingdom."

The New Revised Standard Bible has a footnote at He 1:8,''or God is
your throne."

Thus GOD IS YOUR THRONE can be a proper rendering of the text. Here is
some more information:

Concerning Hebrews 1:8. The Apostle Paul here is quoting Ps 45:3-7
and then applying verses 6,7 to Jesus. Notice the context by verse 9
"therefore God, your God" shows that the person in verse 8 is one who
is anointed by God and one who worships God.

Also, the the first application of Ps 45:3-7 was to King David who
foreshadowed Jesus Christ and was said to sit on God's throne. (1 Ch
29:23) Was the writer making the first application calling David,
Almighty God? Not likely. That is why the translation "Your throne, O
God," can also correctly be rendered "God is your throne" because
there is no verb "is" in the original Hebrew or Greek documents, thus
it is up to the translators to insert it. Since He 1:8 is quoting
Psalm 45:6 then He 1:8 can also be rendered "God is your throne".

The Bible scholar B.F.Wescott said that it was scarcely possible that
"Elohim" (God) should be addressed to a human king thus the
translation "God is thy throne" seemed the best one.

Some other Bible translations that use this wording are An American
Translation, Moffatt, and the marginal readings of American Standard
Version, RSV,and NEB.

Thus the NWT is not alone in rendering it like : "God is your throne".

James
John 4:23,24
www.jw.org









>

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

http://www.amazon.com/Unholy-Hands-Bible-Introduction-Criticism/dp/18...

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

http://carm.org/heb-18-and-psalm-456-god-thy-throne

Heb. 1:8 and Psalm 45:6, "God is thy throne."

Your Throne O God"But with reference to the Son: 'God is your throne
forever and ever, and [the] scepter of your kingdom is the scepter of
uprightness'" The New World Translation.

In this particularly interesting verse, God is addressing the Son. The
Greek construction of Hebrews 1:8 allows the text to be translated in
two legitimate ways:

"God is your throne forever and ever....
and
"Thy Throne O God, is forever and ever..."

But because of the Watchtower presupposition that Jesus is not God,
they choose the first version, otherwise, the Father would be calling
Jesus God and that goes against Jehovah's Witness theology. Yet, most
Bibles do not translate it the way the New World Translation does.
They choose the other way. Why? Two reasons.

First, Heb. 1:8 is a quote from Psalm 45:6, which says,

"Thy Throne, O God, is forever and ever; a scepter of uprightness
is the scepter of Thy Kingdom" (All Bible quotes are from the NASB).

In fact, the ASV, KJV, NIV, and NKJV all translated it as "Your
throne, O God..." The RSV translates it as "Your divine throne
endures for ever and ever," "but this is a highly unlikely translation
because it requires understanding the Hebrew noun for "throne" in
construct state, something extremely unusual when a noun has a
pronomial suffix, as this one does...The KJV, NIV, and NASB all take
the verse in its plain, straightforward sense, as do the ancient
translations..."1

When we look at the Hebrew, we see that there is no grammatical
requirement for this translation, though it is considered to be the
best translation by most translators. In and of itself, this is not
conclusive because the context of this verse in Psalm 45 is dealing
with a king which would make one wonder why he would be addressed as
God. But, it is not uncommon for NT writers to take a verse in the OT
that seemingly deals with one subject and apply it to another. They
knew something we didn't. In fact, in Ezekiel 28:12-17 is a section
that deals with the fall of the devil. Verse 13 describes how he was
in the garden of Eden. Verse 14 says he was the anointed cherub, (v.
15), etc. But the context of this section begins with an address to
the king of Tyre (v. 12). Yet, right after Ezekiel is told to write
to the King of Tyre he then goes on to describe what the great
majority of theologians agree with, a description of the devil's
fall. So, we need to look at the context into which the writer of
Hebrews put Psalm 45:6. He addressed it to Jesus. Therefore, Psalm
45 is a Messianic Psalm and must in interpreted in light of the NT,
not the other way around.

Nevertheless, the context of this verse follows:

"For to which of the angels did He ever say, "Thou are My son,
Today I have begotten Thee"? And again, "I will be a Father to Him,
and He shall be a Son to Me"? 6And when he again brings the first-
born into the world, He says, "And let all the angels of God worship
Him." 7And of the angels He says "Who makes His angels winds, and His
ministers a flame of fire." 8But of the Son He says, "Thy Throne, O
God, is forever and ever, and the righteous scepter is the scepter of
His kingdom, 9Thou hast loved righteousness and hated lawlessness;
therefore God, Thy God, hath anointed Thee with the oil of gladness
above Thy companions. 10And, "Thou, Lord, in the beginning didst lay
the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the works of Thy
hands; 11They will perish, but though remainest...." (Heb. 1:5-11).

To say "God is your throne" doesn't make sense. What does it mean to
say, "But to which of the angels did he say, God is your throne."
What would that mean? Is God, Jesus' throne? God alone is on His
throne and He isn't a throne for anyone else.

Also worth noting here is verse 10: "Thou, Lord, in the beginning
didst lay the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the works
of Thy hands..." This is a quote from Psalm 102:24-25 which says, "I
say, 'O my God, do not take me away in the midst of my days, Thy years
are throughout all generations. 25Of old Thou didst found the earth;
And the heavens are the work of Thy hands.'" Clearly, God is the one
being addressed in Psalm 102. It is God who laid the foundations of
the earth. Yet, in Heb. 1:10, Jesus is called 'Lord' and is said to
be the one who laid the foundation of the earth. This becomes even
more interesting when we note that in Isaiah 44:24 it says, "Thus says
the Lord, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, "I,
the Lord, am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens by
Myself, And spreading out the earth all alone." If God was laying the
foundations of the earth alone, that would mean that either Jesus has
to be God, second person of the trinity, who laid the foundation the
same as YHWH did, or we have a contradiction in the Bible. Clearly
this section of Hebrews is proclaiming that Jesus is God. Therefore,
contextually, it is best to translate Heb. 1:8 as, "Thy Throne, O
God. . ." and the Father call Jesus God.

The Watchtower organization denies that Jesus is God. Therefore, it
cannot permit any verses in the Bible to even hint that Jesus is
God. That is why they choose a translation that does not best fit
the context or overall theology of the Bible.

[vince garcia]

The incompetance of "God is your throne" is beyond human comprehension.

ANYONE who renders it that way is incompetent. PERIOD.

"I went to sleep with a headache"

As a friend pointed out courtesy of his Hebrew professor, take that
statement in english, and the equivalent in Hebrew could be translated
in one of two ways:

"I went to sleep with a headache"

Or

"I died, and my head fell off"

And if I point that out to be technical, I'm not saying the sentence
should be EQUALLY understood either way, and the guy who chooses the
second translation is on equal fooiing with the guy who chooses the
first rendering.

the guy who goes with the second rendering and thinks that's what the
writer meant is a blooming idiot.

You'd say it should be translated the latter way, simply because it CAN
be translated that way, if THAT way would fit your JW agenda.

The utter stupidity of the statement "God is your throne" is like saying
"God is your footstool"

Just because something can theoretically be translated a certain way,
doesn't mean the weird, abberant, nutty translation that totally
redefines the orthodox theology taught by the text into perverted
theology, is the CORRECT tranalation, especially when the full
ramifications of the theology obviously place God in a position of
subservience to the person being spoken to!

If you don't realise, the RULER sits on the throne. The throne is not
superior to the ruler, and does not represent a greater power THAN the
ruler.

Instead of running away as you probably will now do, why don't you name
for us every orthodox jewish source you can find that renders psalm 45:6
as "God is your throne" instead of an abberant gentile source?

And the comments about Jesus being a created being are not worthy of
responding to

[James]

"jwshe...@satx.rr.com" <jwshe...@satx.rr.com>

Concerning He 1:10 it reads,

"He also says, "In the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of
the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands." (NIV)

Paul here again quotes the Psalms, Ps 102:25. Are all the exact ideas
quoted? Ps 102:25 reads,

"In the beginning you laid the foundations of the earth, and the
heavens are the work of your hands."

Notice that Paul inserted the word "Lord" when quoting the Psalms and
not 'my Lord','Lord God','God', or something similar. Since Paul from
verse 5 is making God as the speaker, God would be referring to His
son as being worthy of the Title Lord meaning one who has authority,
ownership, and power over persons and things. But Paul clearly knew
who had the greatest authority. In 1 Co 11:3 Paul writes,

"Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and
the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God." (NIV)

After Jesus was created, he had the privilege to be part of the rest
of the creative processes that God wanted done, thus the words at 1:10
certainly apply to Jesus. (Col 1:15,16)

That is also why Genesis talks about "us" and "our" concerning
creation. (Ge 1:26)

>This becomes even
>more interesting when we note that in Isaiah 44:24 it says, "Thus says
>the Lord, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, "I,
>the Lord, am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens by
>Myself, And spreading out the earth all alone." If God was laying the
>foundations of the earth alone, that would mean that either Jesus has
>to be God, second person of the trinity, who laid the foundation the
>same as YHWH did, or we have a contradiction in the Bible. Clearly
>this section of Hebrews is proclaiming that Jesus is God. Therefore,
>contextually, it is best to translate Heb. 1:8 as, "Thy Throne, O
>God. . ." and the Father call Jesus God.

Jesus was the first to be created. (Col 1:15) After that, as Ge 1:26
says,

" And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and
let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of
the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over
every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

As any loving Father would do, He let Jesus participate in some way,
the rest of creation.

>
>The Watchtower organization denies that Jesus is God.

The JW's go by what the Bible says. If it said that Jesus was God,
then that would be their teaching. But it doesn't. The Bible says that
Jesus was a created being (Col 1:15), thus he cannot possibly be God.
And to worship Jesus would be worshipping the creation, rather that
the One who created.

James
John 4:23,24
www.jw.org

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

Col. 1:15, "firstborn of all creation"

by Matt Slick

"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all

creation; because by means of him all [other] things were created in
the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things
invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or
governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created
through him and for him. Also, he is before all [other] things and by
means of him all [other] things were made to exists." (Col. 1:15-17,
for context. The New World Translation - Emphasis added. Note the
NWT's addition of 'other' into the text four times. This is discussed
here.)

firstborn in greekThe Jehovah's Witnesses interpret the word
"firstborn" here to mean "first created" because it is consistent with
their theological presupposition that Jesus is a created thing. Of
course, Jesus, the word become flesh (John 1:1,14) is not a created
thing. But that hasn't stopped the Watchtower organization from
claiming He is. Nevertheless, there is a Greek word for "first
created" and it was in use at the time of Paul's writing to the
Colossians. He did not use it here. The Greek for "firstborn" is
proto with tikto which would give us "firstborn" and that is what we
find here in Colossians 1:15. The Greek for "first created" would be
proto with ktizo and it is not used here.

Second, the biblical use of the word "firstborn" is most interesting.
It can mean the first born child in a family (Luke 2:7), but it can
also mean "pre-eminence." In Psalm 89:20, 27 it says, "I have found
David My servant; with My holy oil I have anointed him...I also shall
make him My first-born" (NASB). As you can see, David, who was the
last one born in his family was called the firstborn by God. This is a
title of preeminence.

Third, firstborn is also a title that is transferable:

Gen. 41:51-52, "And Joseph called the name of the first-born
Manasseh: For, said he, God hath made me forget all my toil, and all
my fatherï's house. And the name of the second called he Ephraim: For
God hath made me fruitful in the land of my affliction" (NASB)
Jer. 31:9, "...for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is My
firstborn (NASB)."

Scripture best interprets scripture. Firstborn does not require a
meaning of first created as the Jehovah's Witnesses say it means
here. "Firstborn" can mean the first born person in a family and it
can also be a title of preeminence which is transferable. That is
obvious since Jesus is God in flesh (John 1:1,14) and is also the
first born son of Mary. In addition, He is the pre-eminent one in all
things. The Jehovah's Witnesses should consider this when they examine
Col. 1:15. They should also abandon the Watchtower which guides them
in their thinking and believing.

http://carm.org/religious-movements/jehovahs-witnesses/col-115-firstborn-all-creation

[James]

"jwshe...@satx.rr.com" <jwshe...@satx.rr.com>

>my father�'s house. And the name of the second called he Ephraim: For

>God hath made me fruitful in the land of my affliction" (NASB)
> Jer. 31:9, "...for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is My
>firstborn (NASB)."
>
>Scripture best interprets scripture. Firstborn does not require a
>meaning of first created as the Jehovah's Witnesses say it means
>here. "Firstborn" can mean the first born person in a family and it
>can also be a title of preeminence which is transferable. That is
>obvious since Jesus is God in flesh (John 1:1,14) and is also the
>first born son of Mary. In addition, He is the pre-eminent one in all
>things. The Jehovah's Witnesses should consider this when they examine
>Col. 1:15. They should also abandon the Watchtower which guides them
>in their thinking and believing.
>
>http://carm.org/religious-movements/jehovahs-witnesses/col-115-firstborn-all-creation

JW's believe Jesus was the first of the creations by God because of
the CONTEXT of Col 1:15. Let's look at verses 15 and 16 together.

"15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all
creation.
16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth,
visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or
authorities; all things were created by him and for him." (NIV)

The meaning of "firstborn" here is definately being appled to birth
order. Verse 16 talks about the other 'births' or things created.
Jesus was the first, then through him the rest of creation came into
existence.

It appears here that God was using David to forshadow the coming of
his first-born son, Jesus. Notice how God talks about the Messianic
Shepherd as "my servant David" in Eze 34:24.

Paul agrees with the way of creation at 1 Cor 8:6, "yet for us there
is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we
live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things
came and through whom we live." (NIV) Just as in harmoney with the
other scriptures, verse 6 says "from" God came all things (Because of
God, all things came into existence) and "through" Jesus came all
other things. (after Jesus was created, all the rest of creation came
through him.)

And if Jesus was some part of a strange Trinity arrangement, then are
all supposed to be co-equal in Heaven. But Paul clearly shows that
Jesus in Heaven is in subjection go God. 1 Co 11:3,

"Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and
the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God." (NIV)

How can you explain that verse if they are Trinitarian speaking
supposed to be co-equal in Heaven?

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sat, 18 May 2013 12:04:54 -0400, James <1ri...@windstream.net>
wrote:

>JW's believe Jesus was the first of the creations by God because of
>the CONTEXT of Col 1:15. Let's look at verses 15 and 16 together.

That's their problem - but when they can't keep this bullshit where it
belongs, they FIRST have to demonstrate this hypothetical god is more
than just a figment of their deluded imagination.

[Bible verses the moron is also too stupid to realise have no
authority until he demonstrates they do, deleted]

Who the fuck does the moron imagine would give a shit about what JWs
belief if they kept it to themselves, and if they didn't refuse proper
medical treatment to their children?

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

On May 18, 11:04 am, James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote:

"and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ"

Mark 12:29
And Jesus answered him,
The first of all the commandments is
, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:


Notice: The Lord our God is one Lord:"

If Jesus is Lord your cult has a problem.

The only way it can be reconciled is the way
the Bible does it.


Matthew 28:19
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,
baptizing them in the name
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Notice: Name singular, three persons.

HaShem - יהוה

By Rabbi Dr. Hillel ben David (Greg Killian)

HaShem is the Hebrew word which pious Jews use instead of the yod-hey-
vav-hey (יהוה– YHVH[1]) name, in casual conversations, and literally
means The Name.

http://www.betemunah.org/hashem.html

[James]

"jwshe...@satx.rr.com" <jwshe...@satx.rr.com>

>On May 18, 11:04�am, James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>
>"and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ"

Actually, with the false Trinity belief, there would be 3 lords. Lord
God, Lord Jesus, Lord Holy Spirit.

>
>
>Mark 12:29
>And Jesus answered him,
>The first of all the commandments is
>, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:
>
>
>Notice: The Lord our God is one Lord:"
>
>If Jesus is Lord your cult has a problem.
>
>The only way it can be reconciled is the way
> the Bible does it.

The Bible calls God "lord" and Jesus "lord". (Amos 7:1; Lu 24:3)

Also notice that God is "one". Not a composite of three.

>
>
>Matthew 28:19
>Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,
> baptizing them in the name
> of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Notice it just names 3 items. It doesn't say they are are co-equal or
part of some false post-Biblical Trinity doctrine.

If i said: "Jesus, Mary, and Joseph", does that make them a Trinity?

>
>Notice: Name singular, three persons.
>

>HaShem - ????

>
>By Rabbi Dr. Hillel ben David (Greg Killian)
>
>HaShem is the Hebrew word which pious Jews use instead of the yod-hey-

>vav-hey (????� YHVH[1]) name, in casual conversations, and literally

>means The Name.
>
>http://www.betemunah.org/hashem.html

Apparently they still have that old superstition of not pronouncing
the divine name. Yet God included it in His written word around 7000
times. Looks like He wants us to use it, doesn't it. KJV Ps 83:18,

"That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the
most high over all the earth."

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

On May 19, 8:58 am, James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> "jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com" <jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com>

>
> >On May 18, 11:04 am, James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>
> >"and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ"
>
> Actually, with the false Trinity belief, there would be 3 lords. Lord
> God, Lord Jesus, Lord Holy Spirit.
>

Duh! One God,three persons.

>
>
> >Mark 12:29
> >And Jesus answered him,
> >The first of all the commandments is
> >, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:
>
> >Notice: The Lord our God is one Lord:"
>
> >If Jesus is Lord your cult has a problem.
>
> >The only way it can be reconciled is the way
> > the Bible does it.
>
> The Bible calls God "lord" and Jesus "lord". (Amos 7:1; Lu 24:3)
>
> Also notice that God is "one". Not a composite of three.

"...the two are united into one." The Hebrew word translated as "one"
is "echad." It means "a composite one." One that is made up of more
than one. The same word is used in Deut 6:4 "...the LORD is one."
Sounds consistent with the Trinity to me.
http://www.youversion.com/notes/30924

>
Yes, one God, three persons.

>
>
> >Matthew 28:19
> >Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,
> > baptizing them in the name
> > of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
>
> Notice it just names 3 items. It doesn't say they are are co-equal or
> part of some false post-Biblical Trinity doctrine.
>
> If i said: "Jesus, Mary, and Joseph", does that make them a Trinity?
>

There are three names there while in Matt 28:19
the Name is singular, three persons.

>
>
> >Notice: Name singular, three persons.
>
> >HaShem - ????
>
> >By Rabbi Dr. Hillel ben David (Greg Killian)
>
> >HaShem is the Hebrew word which pious Jews use instead of the yod-hey-
> >vav-hey (???? YHVH[1]) name, in casual conversations, and literally
> >means The Name.
>
> >http://www.betemunah.org/hashem.html
>
> Apparently they still have that old superstition of not pronouncing
> the divine name. Yet God included it in His written word around 7000
> times. Looks like He wants us to use it, doesn't it. KJV Ps 83:18,
>
> "That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the
> most high over all the earth."
>

In Hebrew the name of God is spelled YHWH. Since ancient Hebrew had
no written vowels, it is uncertain how the name was pronounced
originally, but there are records of the name in Greek, which did have
written vowels. These records indicate that in all likelihood the name
should be pronounced "Yahweh."

Shortly before the first century A.D., it became common for Jews to
avoid saying the divine name for fear of misusing it and breaking the
second commandment ("You shall not take the name of the Lord, your
God, in vain," Dt 5:11). Whenever they read Scripture aloud and
encountered the divine name, they substituted another Hebrew word,
"Adonai" (which means "Lord" or "my Lord"), in its place.

Eventually Hebrew developed written vowels, which appeared as small
marks called vowel points and were placed above and below the
consonants of a word. In the sixth or seventh century some Jews began
to place the vowel points for "Adonai" over the consonants for
"Yahweh" to remind the reader of Scripture to say "Adonai" whenever he
read "Yahweh."

About the 13th century the term "Jehovah" appeared when Christian
scholars took the consonants of "Yahweh" and pronounced it with the
vowels of "Adonai." This resulted in the sound "Yahowah," which has a
Latinized spelling of "Jehovah." The first recorded use of this
spelling was made by a Spanish Dominican monk, Raymundus Martini, in
1270.

Interestingly, this fact is admitted in much Jehovah's Witness
literature, such as their Aid to Bible Understanding (p. 885). This is
surprising because Jehovah's Witnesses loathe the Catholic Church and
have done everything in their power to strip their church of traces of
Catholicism. Despite this, their group's very name contains a Catholic
"invention," the name "Jehovah."

Jehovah's Witnesses blast orthodox Christendom for "hiding the name of
God" by replacing "Jehovah" with "the Lord" whenever "Jehovah" appears
in Scripture. They charge this is a Jewish "superstition" that
dishonors God (which it does not). Yet their own organization has a
name that was invented as a result of the same thinking that produced
use of "the Lord."

http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/is-gods-name-yahweh-or-jehovah

Maybe, you should take the Scripture seriouly that says

Exodus 20:7
Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain:
for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in
vain.

Using a name invented in the 13th century
INMOHO breaks that commandment.

[James]

"jwshe...@satx.rr.com" <jwshe...@satx.rr.com>

Again, it doesn't say they are co-equal, does it.

JW's didn't invent the name "Jehovah", it was around long before they
became incorporated. See the 1600's KJV Bible at Ps 83:18.

>
> http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/is-gods-name-yahweh-or-jehovah
>
> Maybe, you should take the Scripture seriouly that says
>
>Exodus 20:7
>Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain:
> for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in
>vain.
>
> Using a name invented in the 13th century
> INMOHO breaks that commandment.

Then why don't all the churches today put the divine name in their
Bibles as Yahweh? Why did God put it in His writings around 7000
times, if not to be used?

Replacing YHWH with "LORD" or "God" is tampering with the scriptures.
That is breaking the commands of the NT.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 14:01:57 -0400, James <1ri...@windstream.net>
wrote:

>"jwshe...@satx.rr.com" <jwshe...@satx.rr.com>
>>On May 19, 8:58 am, James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>>> "jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com" <jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com>

Get a room where people won't see your mutual masturbation.

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

No, it is showing respect. When one is
unsure of someones name, you call them
Sir. Doesn't God deserve at least that much respect?

You have been warned,now you are without excuse!

[James]

"jwshe...@satx.rr.com" <jwshe...@satx.rr.com>

You said above "These records indicate that in all likelihood the name
should be pronounced "Yahweh."

Then should not Christendom's Bibles use the closest name, or it might
even be the real name, or at least use the Tetragrammaton in their
Bibles? (YHWH) But INSERTING words is tampering with the Holy
Scriptures.

James
John 4:23,24
www.jw.org








>

> You have been warned,now you are without excuse!

If God wanted us to know exactly

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

Your Columbia heights cult uses a name we know
is wrong. Christians use what Abraham used
in Genesis 18
3 And said , My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight,
pass not away , I pray thee, from thy servant:

The word used by Abraham is adonay.
or in English Lord.
http://classic.studylight.org/isb/view.cgi?number=0136

So,Christians are Biblical, your cult isn't,
but I know you won't be a man and admit
you are wrong.

[James]

"jwshe...@satx.rr.com" <jwshe...@satx.rr.com>

First of all, the Bible says no one may see God and yet live. Ex
33:20,

"But," he said, "you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and
live."" (NIV)

God is so great (the creator of all those suns out there, etc) that
human eyes can't take His literal presence. Only spirit beings can see
Him as He is.

Thus Abraham was tending to angels, not God Himself. Angels were many
times sent as messengers for God. As Paul put it at He 13:2,

"Don't forget to be kind to strangers, for some who have done this
have entertained angels without realizing it! " (Living Bible)

A footnote on Ge 18:3 says, "This is the first of 134 places where the
Jewish Sopherim changed YHWH to �Adho�nai'. This substitution was made
out of misapplied reverence for God�s name. See App 1B. (NWT)

Thus it should read: "Then he said: �Jehovah, if, now, I have found
favor in your eyes, please do not pass by your servant."
(NWT)

More on the Jewish Sopherim:

"Lists that were too long for the margins were moved to another
section of the manuscript. For example, the Masoretic note in the side
margin of Genesis 18:3 shows three Hebrew letters, ???. This is the
Hebrew equivalent of the number 134. In another section of the
manuscript, a list appears indicating 134 places where pre-Masoretic
copyists had deliberately removed the name Jehovah from the Hebrew
text, replacing it with the word �Lord.� Although aware of these
changes, the Masoretes did not take the liberty of altering the text
handed down to them. Instead, they indicated these changes in their
marginal notes" (1995 Watchtower, 9/15, p. 28)


According to a web page describing the book "Criticisms of the Bible",
it lists the 134 places where they substituted YHWH for "Lord". (this
is NOT a JW site):

http://books.google.com/books?id=ZbWPcM6o-WUC&pg=PA181&dq=ge+18:3+YHWH&hl=en&sa=X&ei=6vWdUan9E7eu4AOfqYDYDA&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=ge%2018%3A3%20YHWH&f=false

Now you know something that a lot of religious people don't know.

James
John 4:23,24
www.jw.org



>

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

On May 23, 6:10 am, James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote:

"First of all, the Bible says no one may see God and yet live. Ex
33:20,
"But," he said, "you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and
live."" (NIV) "

You love selective quoting,

Genesis 32:30
And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel:
[1] for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.

Exodus 33:11
And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his
friend. And he turned again into the camp: but his servant Joshua, the
son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle.

Deuteronomy 34:10
And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses,
whom the LORD knew face to face,

Definition of THEOPHANY
: a visible manifestation of a deity

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theophany

Chapter 18: The Theophany at Mamre

Abraham's Theophany of the Lord at the grove of Mamre was a visitation
that had an impact on all of salvation history. It was in this
uniquely personal visit that Yahweh announced to his faithful servant
that the time had come for the birth of the promised son (Gen 17:19).
The Catechism addresses these remarkable visual experiences with the
Divine as markers that point to the coming of the Redeemer-Messiah:
Theophanies (manifestations of God) light up the way of the promise,
from the patriarchs to Moses and from Joshua to the visions that
inaugurated the missions of the great prophets. Christian tradition
has always recognized that God's Word allowed himself to be seen and
heard in these theophanies, in which the cloud of the Holy Spirit both
revealed him and concealed him in its shadow (CCC 707).

Please read Genesis 18:1-8: The Visitation of the Lord
18:1Yahweh appeared to him at the Oak of Mamre while he was sitting by
the entrance of the tent during the hottest part of the day. 2He
looked up, and there he saw three men standing near him. As soon as
he saw them he ran from the entrance to the tent to greet them, and
bowed to the ground. 3'My lord,' he said, 'if I find favor with you,
please do not pass your servant by

Some of fathers of the Church (especially the Eastern fathers) have
seen the visitation of the three "men" as a manifestation of the Most
Holy Trinity

http://www.agapebiblestudy.com/genesis/Lesson_10.htm


Philo who lived Philo Judaeus, also called Philo of Alexandria (born
15–10 bc, Alexandria—died ad 45–50,
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/456612/Philo-Judaeus
also saw a type of Trinity in those verses.

Philo writes:

...it is reasonable for one to be three and for three to be one, for
they were one by a higher principle... ...he makes the appearance of a
trinity [triad]... He cannot be seen in his oneness without something
[else], the chief Powers that that exist immediately with him... the
Creative, which is called "God" and the Kingly, which is called
"Lord"... [Abraham] begins to see the sovereign, holy, and divine
vision in such a way that single appearance appears as a trinity
[triad], and the trinity [triad] as a unity.
(Philo; Questions on Genesis, IV, 2)

http://www.iloveulove.com/spirituality/kabbalah/kabbachurch.htm

Look we know you got the Name of the Lord wrong
because you get Jahovah by using the vowals
for Adonai. Tey, your cult won't change the name
showing they are false witnesses.

jomas(notice the wrong vowels) you just can never
accept being wrong.

1 Corinthians 13:12
For now we see through a glass, darkly;[1]
but then face to face: now I know in part;
but then shall I know even as also I am known.

Don't be like Belshazzar

Daniel 5:22
And thou his son, O Belshazzar,
hast not humbled thine heart,
though thou knewest all this;

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 07:10:04 -0400, James <1ri...@windstream.net>
wrote:

>First of all, the Bible says no one may see God and yet live. Ex
>33:20,

Congratulations, you have found yet another contradiction.

>"But," he said, "you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and
>live."" (NIV)

Genesis 32:30 "For I have seen God face to face."

Exodus 33:11 "And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man
speaketh unto his friend."

Isaiah 6:1 "In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord
sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the
temple."

Job 42:5 "I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine
eye seeth thee."

>God is so great (the creator of all those suns out there, etc) that
>human eyes can't take His literal presence. Only spirit beings can see
>Him as He is.

In the real world God remains a figment of your deluded imagination
until you demonstrate its real world existence.

>Thus Abraham was tending to angels, not God Himself. Angels were many
>times sent as messengers for God. As Paul put it at He 13:2,

Why do you talk outside your religion as if its fairy stories actually
happened?

>"Don't forget to be kind to strangers, for some who have done this
>have entertained angels without realizing it! " (Living Bible)

Idiot.

[James]

"jwshe...@satx.rr.com" <jwshe...@satx.rr.com>

I explained that in another email. The Bible says that Moses received
the law THROUGH ANGELS. (Gal 3:19; NJB) And to repeat:

The physician Luke confirms this at Acts 7:53,

"In spite of being given the Law through angels, you have not kept
it." (NJB)

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

On May 25, 7:29 am, James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> "jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com" <jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[walksalone]

James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote in
news:vfb1q8p1a0ft49n5r...@4ax.com:

> "jwshe...@satx.rr.com" <jwshe...@satx.rr.com>
>>On May 23, 6:10�am, James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote:

snip mental masturbation.
& of course, follow up set.

>>Please read Genesis 18:1-8: The Visitation of the Lord
>>18:1Yahweh appeared to him at the Oak of Mamre while he was sitting by
>>the entrance of the tent during the hottest part of the day. 2He
>>looked up, and there he saw three men standing near him. As soon as
>>he saw them he ran from the entrance to the tent to greet them, and
>>bowed to the ground. 3'My lord,' he said, 'if I find favor with you,
>>please do not pass your servant by
>>
>>Some of fathers of the Church (especially the Eastern fathers) have
>>seen the visitation of the three "men" as a manifestation of the Most
>>Holy Trinity
>>
>>http://www.agapebiblestudy.com/genesis/Lesson_10.htm
>>
>>
>>Philo who lived Philo Judaeus, also called Philo of Alexandria (born
>>15�10 bc, Alexandria�died ad 45�50,
>>http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/456612/Philo-Judaeus
>>also saw a type of Trinity in those verses.

He was a philosopher, & a Jew. Hence his writings have been stolen &
reinterpreted by xians. BTW, he was a cpontemporary of the missing
messiah, & never mentioned him.

>>Philo writes:

What is the context, other than what xians want to see.

>>...it is reasonable for one to be three and for three to be one, for
>>they were one by a higher principle... ...he makes the appearance of a
>>trinity [triad]... He cannot be seen in his oneness without something
>>[else], the chief Powers that that exist immediately with him... the
>>Creative, which is called "God" and the Kingly, which is called
>>"Lord"... [Abraham] begins to see the sovereign, holy, and divine
>>vision in such a way that single appearance appears as a trinity
>>[triad], and the trinity [triad] as a unity.
>>(Philo; Questions on Genesis, IV, 2)

missing the mental masturbation, use google.

> I explained that in another email. The Bible says that Moses received
> the law THROUGH ANGELS. (Gal 3:19; NJB) And to repeat:

Considered to be Pauline with one that may not be.
Romans - 1 Corinthians - 2 Corinthians - Galatians - Ephesians -
Philippians - Colossians - 1 Thessalonians - 2 Thessalonians - 1 Timothy -
2 Timothy - Titus - Philemon. Hebrews.
Strangely, for the first books they are the last in print.

Galatians 3:19

King James Version (KJV)

19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions,
till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained
by angels in the hand of a mediator.

Moses is not named, so you are as usual in matters biblical, appealing to
unfounded autority.

Serious apologys to the group, but it's that context thing xians ignore.

3 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the
truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth,
crucified among you?

2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of
the law, or by the hearing of faith?

3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by
the flesh?

4 Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain.

5 He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles
among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for
righteousness.

7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children
of Abraham.

8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through
faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all
nations be blessed.

9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.

10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it
is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are
written in the book of the law to do them.

11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is
evident: for, The just shall live by faith.

12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in
them.

13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse
for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus
Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's
covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.

16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to
seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in
Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot
disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God
gave it to Abraham by promise.

19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions,
till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained
by angels in the hand of a mediator.

20 Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.

21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there
had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness
should have been by the law.

22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by
faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the
faith which should afterwards be revealed.

24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we
might be justified by faith.

25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is
neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according
to the promise.

The Greek Testaments are not the New Testament. There is no Hebrew
Testament, nor can there be. A Hebrew Bible, now they have such an
anthology.

It also denies Mose's on the moutain & calls yahweh a liar.

> The physician Luke confirms this at Acts 7:53,
> "In spite of being given the Law through angels, you have not kept
> it." (NJB)

So, no moses as the law giver? Fancy that. I'm willig to bet that the
Jews didn't sign off on that lie.

37 This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet
shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me;
him shall ye hear.

38 This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel
which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received
the lively oracles to give unto us:

39 To whom our fathers would not obey, but thrust him from them, and in
their hearts turned back again into Egypt,

40 Saying unto Aaron, Make us gods to go before us: for as for this Moses,
which brought us out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is become of
him.

41 And they made a calf in those days, and offered sacrifice unto the idol,
and rejoiced in the works of their own hands.

42 Then God turned, and gave them up to worship the host of heaven; as it
is written in the book of the prophets, O ye house of Israel, have ye
offered to me slain beasts and sacrifices by the space of forty years in
the wilderness?

43 Yea, ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god
Remphan, figures which ye made to worship them: and I will carry you away
beyond Babylon.

44 Our fathers had the tabernacle of witness in the wilderness, as he had
appointed, speaking unto Moses, that he should make it according to the
fashion that he had seen.

45 Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the
possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our
fathers, unto the days of David;

46 Who found favour before God, and desired to find a tabernacle for the
God of Jacob.

47 But Solomon built him an house.

48 Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith
the prophet,

49 Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what house will ye build
me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my rest?

50 Hath not my hand made all these things?

51 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist
the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.

52 Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have
slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye
have been now the betrayers and murderers:

53 Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not
kept it.

54 When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they
gnashed on him with their teeth.

55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven,
and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,

56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing
on the right hand of God.

57 Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran
upon him with one accord,

58 And cast him out of the city, and stoned him: and the witnesses laid
down their clothes at a young man's feet, whose name was Saul.

59 And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus,
receive my spirit.

60 And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin
to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep.

The problem with selective quote mining & using a translation, it never
really means what you say it does & makes a liar out of you.


As to who gave the law to the Jews, recognise these chapters, or maybe just
one or two.

32 And when the people saw that Moses delayed to come down out of the
mount, the people gathered themselves together unto Aaron, and said unto
him, Up, make us gods, which shall go before us; for as for this Moses, the
man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is become
of him.

2 And Aaron said unto them, Break off the golden earrings, which are in the
ears of your wives, of your sons, and of your daughters, and bring them
unto me.

3 And all the people brake off the golden earrings which were in their
ears, and brought them unto Aaron.

These are rrefugees, who stole not according to a prior claim in this book.
Common slaves don't wear gold.

4 And he received them at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool,
after he had made it a molten calf: and they said, These be thy gods, O
Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.

5 And when Aaron saw it, he built an altar before it; and Aaron made
proclamation, and said, To morrow is a feast to the Lord.

6 And they rose up early on the morrow, and offered burnt offerings, and
brought peace offerings; and the people sat down to eat and to drink, and
rose up to play.

7 And the Lord said unto Moses, Go, get thee down; for thy people, which
thou broughtest out of the land of Egypt, have corrupted themselves:

8 They have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them:
they have made them a molten calf, and have worshipped it, and have
sacrificed thereunto, and said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which have
brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.

9 And the Lord said unto Moses, I have seen this people, and, behold, it is
a stiffnecked people:

10 Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and
that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation.

Such love.
It is also before the people had a chance to receive the laws Moses was
supposed to deliver.


14 And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his
people.

15 And Moses turned, and went down from the mount, and the two tables of
the testimony were in his hand: the tables were written on both their
sides; on the one side and on the other were they written.

16 And the tables were the work of God, and the writing was the writing of
God, graven upon the tables.

17 And when Joshua heard the noise of the people as they shouted, he said
unto Moses, There is a noise of war in the camp.

18 And he said, It is not the voice of them that shout for mastery, neither
is it the voice of them that cry for being overcome: but the noise of them
that sing do I hear.

19 And it came to pass, as soon as he came nigh unto the camp, that he saw
the calf, and the dancing: and Moses' anger waxed hot, and he cast the
tables out of his hands, and brake them beneath the mount.

20 And he took the calf which they had made, and burnt it in the fire, and
ground it to powder, and strawed it upon the water, and made the children
of Israel drink of it.

21 And Moses said unto Aaron, What did this people unto thee, that thou
hast brought so great a sin upon them?

22 And Aaron said, Let not the anger of my lord wax hot: thou knowest the
people, that they are set on mischief.

Moses never did deliver the law, but supposedly his god did a rewirite &
that was delivered.


No angels involved. Unles you are claioming your god is just a local tooth
fairy without the ability to make itself understood in plain Aramic.

You were claiming?

[3]

walksalone who has no doubt I irk u 2 sees itself as a fine scholar of
materia Fanyasia, but like most xians he knows not of what he pretends.

The man was a slave, & long before xians. Yet, thanks to xians whining
about him, we have some of his wrtitings today.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?"
-Epicurus

ca-300 Gr.

[James]

So just ignore Gal 3:19 and Acts 7:53? Since the WHOLE BIBLE is
inspired of God, there cannot be doctrinal contradictions. (2 Ti 3:16)
I stand by the Bible, which says no man may literally see God and live
to tell about it. Ex 33:20,

"But," he said, "you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and
live."" (NIV)

[walksalone]

James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote in
news:0jr3q8llrtho64ml3...@4ax.com:

> On May 25, 7:29�am, James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>> "jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com" <jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com>

Followups set, apparently James AKA I irk u 2 is above that courtesy.

>> >On May 23, 6:10�am, James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote:

Minor snippage will ensue, primary text marked when in bulk.

>> >"First of all, the Bible says no one may see God and yet live. Ex
>> >33:20,
>> >"But," he said, "you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and
>> >live."" (NIV) "

>> >Exodus 33:11
>> >And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto
his
>> >friend. And he turned again into the camp: but his servant Joshua,

>> >Deuteronomy 34:10
>> >And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses,
>> >whom the LORD knew face to face,

Yup, snip

> Genesis 32:30
> And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel:
> [1] for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.
>
> So just ignore Gal 3:19 and Acts 7:53? Since the WHOLE BIBLE is
> inspired of God, there cannot be doctrinal contradictions. (2 Ti 3:16)

That's one confused scribe you have there. It is inspired, when one
reads it in context, by the priesthood. Who just happend to be among the
elite.

> I stand by the Bible, which says no man may literally see God and live
> to tell about it. Ex 33:20,

That's where he mooned Moses?

> "But," he said, "you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and
> live."" (NIV)

Exodus 33:11 & Duet. say you are telling a sacred falsehood, & not just
cherry picking your claims.

BTW, not for you James, you aren't into knowing. That not being able to
look a god in the face, came from Mespotamia. Supposedly the home of
Abbie, you remember him, don't you. The one that was bribed by a god so
weak it had to find followers.
Oh, & that not being allowed to name a god, that's Egyptian in origin.

Just two more things ripped off by the Hebrew Bible, & claimed by one of
its redheaded stepchildren. Both IIRC.

Speaking of Abbie, why lack of knowledge about that subject would you
care to share with the audience of one you are working on?

walksalone who does not blame I irk u 2 for not researching his pets,
after all, they are embarassingly shallow when it comes to light how
artificial they were, & are.

Does an yone else spot similarities with the below? Not all have been
filled, but enough to be a good indicator.

Step one: Post off topic. Show total disregard for the purpose of the
comments section. Better still, post the exact same thing in the
comments section of several totally unrelated articles.

Step two: Make sure you give a gloss of politeness to your post.

Step three: Be sure not to actually read anything on the site, just
launch your attack. Do not seek answers, and do not question your own
position. You already know you're right; either of the above would
merely be matching wits with the Devil!

Step four: When you get a response, make sure you point out how puzzled
you are that they are not yet totally convinced. Be sure to ask "why so
much anger". Point out the character flaws which are surely the cause of
their incredulity. Do not engage any of the points raised, do not under
any circumstances enter into real dialogue; then repeat your original
post as if nothing else has yet been added to the discussion.

Step five: If asked a direct question, ignore it. Accuse everyone else
of not answering your questions.

Step six: If they are still not convinced, repeat steps four and five.

Step seven: If anyone calls you up on any of our incoherence, poor
reasoning, dishonesty or blatant lies; ignore step two. Be sure to whip
yourself up into a self-righteous frenzy, bemoan the fact that all you
want is an honest discussion, to share opinions. Tell them how much God
loves them. Tell them they'll spend an eternity in Hell.

Step eight: Leave, never to be heard from again, shaking the
metaphorical dust from your metaphorical sandals as you go. (If only
we'd be so fortunate)

Ken <flak...@aol.com>

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

John 1:18
No man hath seen God at any time;
the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father
he hath declared him.

John Chapter 20
28 And Thomas answered and said unto him,
My Lord and my God.

29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas,
because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed:
blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

[James]

"jwshe...@satx.rr.com" <jwshe...@satx.rr.com>

Looks like we are in repetition again. I am surprised you quoted John
1:18. Notice "No man hath seen God at any time;" That includes all the
OT personages as well as they saw Jesus in the NT. If Jesus was God he
could not say that. (or was lying) No, Jesus is not God.

Also, since Thomas had already seen Jesus before his words at John
20:28, Thomas couldn't possibly have meant that "my God" was Jesus.
If he meant since he saw Jesus, he saw God, then what about all the
other people who saw Jesus where before Thomas? Again Jesus said no
one has seen God!

Don't you think that is a reasonable argument against the man-made
post-Bible Trinity doctrine of the 4th century? You can learn
something here if you have an open mind. It's up to you.

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

Your "god" doesn't have the ability to become
a man,mine does.

Meditate on:

33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead,
and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.

34. Who, although He is God and man,
yet He is not two, but one Christ.

http://www.ccel.org/creeds/athanasian.creed.html

[vince garcia]

See why i specifically call you a LIAR?

After challenging us to do research, I did and gave you a variety of
Trinity quoites showing the Personhood of the Spirit taught from the
second century onward, and you STILL lie with a straight face and repeat

"the man-made post-Bible Trinity doctrine of the 4th century"

You are a liar, and the Bible tells us who the father of lies is.



"I praise you for all things, I bless you, I glorify you, along with the
everlasting and heavenly Jesus Christ, your beloved Son, with whom, to
you and the Holy Spirit, be glory both now and to all coming ages. Amen"

Polycarp 150 AD



Irenaeus

"It was not angels, therefore, who made us nor who formed us, neither
had angels power to make an image of God, nor anyone else. . . . For God
did not stand in need of these in order to accomplish what he had
himself determined with himself beforehand should be done, as if he did
not possess his own hands. For with him [the Father] were always present
the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom, freely
and spontaneously, he made all things, to whom also he speaks, saying,
‘Let us make man in our image and likeness’ [Gen. 1:26]" (Against
Heresies 4:20:1 [A.D. 189]

Tertullian

"While keeping to this demurrer always, there must, nevertheless, be
place for reviewing for the sake of the instruction and protection of
various persons. Otherwise it might seem that each perverse opinion is
not examined but simply prejudged and condemned. This is especially so
in the case of the present heresy [Sabellianism], which considers itself
to have the pure truth when it supposes that one cannot believe in the
one only God in any way other than by saying that Father, Son, and
Spirit are the selfsame PERSON. As if one were not all . . . through the
unity of substance" (Against Praxeas 2:3–4 [A.D. 216]).



"But some treat the Holy Trinity in an awful manner, when they
confidently assert that there are not three persons, and introduce (the
idea of) a person devoid of subsistence. Wherefore we clear ourselves of
Sabellius, who says that the Father and the Son are the same [person]. .
. . We forswear this, because we believe that three persons—namely,
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—are declared to possess the one Godhead:
for the one divinity showing itself forth according to nature in the
Trinity establishes the oneness of the nature" (gregory the
Wonderworker--A Sectional Confession of Faith 8 [A.D. 262]).

"no such definition" of the Spirit as a person before the 4th century
you JW liar?

I DID do the research myself, and found you to be a lying mouthpiece of
your father the devil

[James]

"jwshe...@satx.rr.com" <jwshe...@satx.rr.com>

God can probably become anything He wants. But there is no indication
IN THE BIBLE, that he became a man. Again, the Bible says that God
never died, which go contary to your god. Ps 90:2,

"Before the mountains were born or you brought forth the earth and the
world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God." (NIV)

Your god consists of 3 persons. My God is but one person. De 6:4,

"Listen, Israel: Yahweh our God is the one Yahweh." (Catholic
Jerusalem Bible)

>
> Meditate on:
>
> 33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead,
> and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.
>
>34. Who, although He is God and man,
> yet He is not two, but one Christ.
>
> http://www.ccel.org/creeds/athanasian.creed.html

"The Athanasian Creed...The creed has been used by Christian churches
since the sixth century. It is the first creed in which the equality
of the three persons of the Trinity is explicitly stated.( Wikipedia,
the free encyclopedia)

"The oldest surviving manuscripts of the Athanasian Creed date from
the late 8th century.[12]" .( Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

You are relying upon something written by uninspired men up to 800
years after the Bible was written, and which contradicts the Bible as
well. If that is what you want, then so be it. I will stand by just
the Bible, no uninspired creeds or church books or teachings etc. Ec
12:11,12,

"11. The words of wise men are like goads, and masters of these
collections are like well-driven nails; they are given by one
Shepherd.
12. But beyond this, my son, be warned: the writing of many books is
endless, and excessive devotion to books is wearying to the body."
(NASB)

[Tshepa Thapelo]

On May 21, 2:01 pm, James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote:

>
> >http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/is-gods-name-yahweh-or-jehovah
>
> Maybe, you should take the Scripture seriouly that says

This is why I think Thomas Hobbes had a good point.
Any organization that called itself church should be banned.
Only the Church that is founded on the Councils of the nations-
Nicaea, Constantinople, Chalcedon, Ephesus, and so on-
should be allowed to operate and proselytize
This would put out of business some pernicious cults like
Jehovah witnesses, Mormons, Salvation Army and their like.
--------
Through Mary... God.

>
> >Exodus 20:7
> >Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain:
> > for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in
> >vain.
>
> > Using a name invented in the 13th century
> > INMOHO breaks that commandment.
>
> Then why don't all the churches today put the divine name in their
> Bibles as Yahweh? Why did God put it in His writings around 7000
> times, if not to be used?

Since the Incarnation the Divine name is now universally known
as JESUS CHRIST
-------------
There is No God but Jesus and Invinctus is His Messenger of peace

>
> Replacing YHWH with "LORD" or "God" is tampering with the scriptures.
> That is breaking the commands of the NT.

YHWH can't be Lord?

>
> James
> John 4:23,24www.jw.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Tshepa Thapelo]

Stop over-intellectualizing the Scriptures. Jesus is the GOD that
the authors of the books you quoted were trying to CONCEAL.
------
Through Mary... God

>
> Also, since Thomas had already seen Jesus before his words at John
> 20:28, Thomas couldn't possibly have meant that "my God" was Jesus.
> If he meant since he saw Jesus, he saw God, then what about all the
> other people who saw Jesus where before Thomas? Again Jesus said no
> one has seen God!
>
> Don't you think that is a reasonable argument against the man-made
> post-Bible Trinity doctrine of the 4th century? You can learn
> something here if you have an open mind. It's up to you.

The Qur'anic position on the Trinity and its Christology make more
sense than that of JWs.
Jehovah Witnesses are consistent neither with Saint Paul, nor with
the Qur'an/Torah
------
Through Mary.... God


>
> James
> John 4:23,24www.jw.org

[ozzy...@gmail.com]

> >my father�'s house. And the name of the second called he Ephraim: For

Just a quick note, as I stumbled onto this discussion...

We lose some of the meaning of the Bible during translation. As we all know, there are multiple words for the same word in our english. For example, in Col 1:15 The Greek word of "first created" is not used. The Greek for firstborn is proto with tikto: firstborn. The Greek for first created would be proto with ktizo: first created. Paul did not use the second but the first.

In 1 Cor. 11:3 The Greek translation states not that God is head of Christ, but actually says: Christ "The" God.... so its "the" not "of".

Pretty cool to really dig into this stuff. lots of interesting things to see.
& Yes, I do believe in the Almighty God. Can I see HIM? I can see the effects of Him... Can you see the wind? Alas, you can see the effects of it.

1 Corinthians 2:14
New Century Version (NCV)
14 A person who does not have the Spirit does not accept the truths that come from the Spirit of God. That person thinks they are foolish and cannot understand them, because they can only be judged to be true by the Spirit.

I pray that all that read this discussion dive in.... If you read His Word you will see... If one doesn't, ... how can a good argument be made? :)

Isaiah 55:11
New International Version (NIV)
11 so is my word that goes out from my mouth:
It will not return to me empty,
but will accomplish what I desire
and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.

GOD Bless

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

Jesus did not rebuke Thomas, when Thomas called Jesus my God.

> >> Also, since Thomas had already seen Jesus before his words at John
>
> >> 20:28, Thomas couldn't possibly have meant that "my God" was Jesus.
>

I believe my God means my God. Stop trying to explain
away the plain meaning of Scripture.

> >> If he meant since he saw Jesus, he saw God, then what about all the
>
> >> other people who saw Jesus where before Thomas? Again Jesus said no
>
> >> one has seen God!

The Word was made flesh
the Word was God
the flesh wasn't

> >> Don't you think that is a reasonable argument against the man-made
>
> >> post-Bible Trinity doctrine of the 4th century?

Now, you are just lying,I showed where Philo
used a type of Trinity in the first century.
thou shalt not bare false witness.

You can learn
>
> >> something here if you have an open mind. It's up to you.

Your the one who can't read with his own eyes.
Philo speaks of a trinity in the first century.
Also,Jesus "in the Name of the father,Son,Holy Ghost
Notice: Name singular,three persons

> >> James
>
> >> John 4:23,24www.jw.org

> > Your "god" doesn't have the ability to become
>
> > a man,mine does.

> God can probably become anything He wants. But there is no indication
>
> IN THE BIBLE, that he became a man. Again, the Bible says that God
>

> never died, which go contrary to your god. Ps 90:2,

Duh! Jesus died as man,not God
The Word was made flesh
The Word was God
The Flesh wasn't

> "Before the mountains were born or you brought forth the earth and the
>
> world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God." (NIV)

> Your god consists of 3 persons. My God is but one person. De 6:4,

> "Listen, Israel: Yahweh our God is the one Yahweh." (Catholic
>
> Jerusalem Bible)

Yachid vs. Echad The most important verse Jews memorized in the Bible was Deut 6:4: "Hear, O Israel! Yahweh is our God, Yahweh is one [Echad]!" There are a few words in Hebrew that the Holy Spirit could have used a word the has one exclusive meaning: the numeric, solitary oneness of God ("yachid" or "bad").

Instead the Holy Spirit chose to use the Hebrew word, "echad" which is used most often as a unified one, and sometimes as numeric oneness. For example, when God said in Genesis 2:24 "the two shall become one [echad] flesh" it is the same word for "one" that was used in Deut 6:4.
http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-oneness-unity-yachid-vs-echad.htm

> > Meditate on:

> > 33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead,
>
> > and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.

> >34. Who, although He is God and man,
>
> > yet He is not two, but one Christ.

> > http://www.ccel.org/creeds/athanasian.creed.html

> "The Athanasian Creed...The creed has been used by Christian churches
>
> since the sixth century. It is the first creed in which the equality
>
> of the three persons of the Trinity is explicitly stated.( Wikipedia,
>
> the free encyclopedia)

They forgot where Jesus in the first century says
in the Name of the Father,the Son,and the Holy Ghost
Notice: Name singular,three persons

> "The oldest surviving manuscripts of the Athanasian Creed date from
>
> the late 8th century.[12]" .( Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

> You are relying upon something written by uninspired men up to 800
>
> years after the Bible was written, and which contradicts the Bible as
>
> well. If that is what you want, then so be it. I will stand by just
>
> the Bible, no uninspired creeds or church books or teachings etc. Ec
>
> 12:11,12,

Your cult was founded by an uninspired man in 1875 A.D.
Jesus said the Gates of Hell wouldn't prevail against
his church. He says nothing about His Church disappearing
between 33 A.D. until 1875 A.D.

> "11. The words of wise men are like goads, and masters of these
>
> collections are like well-driven nails; they are given by one
>
> Shepherd.
>
> 12. But beyond this, my son, be warned: the writing of many books is
>
> endless, and excessive devotion to books is wearying to the body."
>
> (NASB)

Especially, Awake and Watchtower magazines.

> James
>
> John 4:23,24
>
> www.jw.org

remember
The Word was made flesh.
The word was God.*
The flesh wasn't.
The Apostolic Churches have gotten it for 2000 years,
maybe some day you will.

* How do the GREEKS understand it.
According to gospel of St.John Word was God (John1:1)
http://www.orthodoxanswers.org/answer/820/